State of Louisiana on Behalf of Paula Robertson v. Mitchell Larcart

DO NOT PUBLISH

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-768

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

MITCHELL LARCART

************

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 11,773
HONORABLE PATRICIA KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Mitchell Larcart
2602 Third Street
Alexandria, LA 71302
IN PROPER PERSON:
Defendant/Appellant

Robert G. Levy
921 Ninth Street
Alexandria, LA 71302
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana

PAINTER, Judge

Defendant, Mitchell Larcart, appeals the trial court’s decision allowing

registration of a child support order from the state of West Virginia and ordering

payment under that order. Finding no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm.

FACTS

Paula Clay and Mitchell Larcart were married in Georgia in 1998. They had

one child in 1998. Paula and the child moved to West Virginia in April 2001. Paula

obtained a Decree of Separate Maintenance on September 26, 2001. Mitchell

moved to Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, and filed for divorce there in February

2002. In March 2002, the Family Court of Wayne County, West Virginia (the

Family Court), granted Paula separate maintenance. On April 9, 2002, a final

decree was entered by the Family Court granting a divorce and awarding child

support in the amount of $705.11 per month. Mitchell sent the Family Court a

letter, which was received on April 26, 2002, disputing jurisdiction but asking that

the court consider the letter a general appearance. An appeal was entered on behalf

of Mitchell, and the Circuit Court of Wayne County, West Virginia (the Circuit

Court), remanded the matter to the Family Court to determine whether it had

jurisdiction to hear the matter. Upon remand, the Family Court found that it lacked

jurisdiction to grant a divorce and nullified the decree of divorce rendered in the

April 9 judgment. Paula amended her petition. Mitchell again appealed, alleging

that his action in Louisiana precluded the filing of a new complaint in West

Virginia. The Circuit Court found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s

decision to allow the amended petition.

In July 2005, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human

Resources, Bureau for Child Support Enforcement (W.VA. Support Enforcement),

filed a petition for modification of the child support order asking that it be
1

decreased because it was inconsistent with the child support guidelines. W.VA.

Support Enforcement also asked for consideration of the medical needs of the child

and that the non-custodial parent pay costs. It moved the court to determine the

controlling order for child support and the amount of arrears. In December 2005,

the Family Court entered an order finding that it had jurisdiction to modify the

child support order, that the parties had notice, and that Paula’s action for separate

maintenance predated any proceeding filed in Louisiana, and reduced Mitchell’s

child support obligation to $508.51 per month beginning December 1, 2005.

Mitchell appealed the order, and the Circuit Court denied the appeal finding that

the Family Court had jurisdiction over this matter.

In May 2010, the State of Louisiana, on Paula’s behalf, filed a Petition To

Register Foreign Support Order For Enforcement Under The Provisions Of

Children[’]s Code Articles 1306.1 et seq,, seeking to enforce the West Virginia

support order. After a hearing, the trial court ordered the West Virginia support

order registered and entered an order for payment of child support and an

immediate income assignment order. Mitchell appeals pro se.

DISCUSSION

Mitchell neither assigns error nor makes any argument on appeal. However,

in the interests of justice, we have reviewed the record, and we note the provisions

of La.Ch.Code art. 1302.7(B)(2), concerning jurisdiction under the Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act :

If more than one of the tribunals would have continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction under this Chapter, an order issued by a
tribunal in the current home state of the child controls and must be so
recognized, but if an order has not been issued in the current home
state of the child, the order most recently issued controls and must be
so recognized.

Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s reasons as our own, as follows:

2

WRITTEN REASONS

This matter came for hearing for a determination of arrearage
on October 27, 2010. The defendant raised the question concerning
jurisdictional issues between the State of Louisiana and the State of
West Virginia. The Court agreed to review the entire record before
making a determination about registration of the order of support from
the State of West Virginia.

The Court has now had the opportunity to thoroughly review
the records contained within the Clerk of Court’s record as well as
that of the Assistant District Attorney along with documents produced
by Mitchell Larcart. The records indicate that Mr. Larcart has
continually raised his concerns about the state of West Virginia’s
ability to insert their authority into an order of child support. His
concerns were addressed at each level of involvement from the trial
court through the courts of appeal in West Virginia. The rulings
remained consistent recognizing the State of West Virginia as having
“continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the matter” since the minor child
continued to reside in the state. In making those determinations, this
court reviewed their knowledge of the location of the minor child and
the knowledge of any other state’s interest in the case. The opinions
by both judges make it clear to this court that Mr. Larcart made them
fully aware of the actions within the State of Louisiana; however their
decision was based upon the physical location of the child.

Based upon the above stated reasons, this court finds that those
decisions of the State of West Virginia were appropriate and this court
will allow the registry of the support order.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are assessed against Defendant/Appellant, Mitchell Larcart.

AFFIRMED.

3